About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
that it's a hard job every day of the week. >> defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chiefs of staff's general martin dempsey testified before the senate armed services committee on the defense department 2014 budget request. the pentagon budget request includes almost $527 billion in discretionary spending nearly 1% decrease from 2013. this is three hours and 45 minutes. >> good morning everybody. chuck hagel, general martin dempsey the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, accompanied by the department's comptroller undersecretary bob hailed for her hearing on department of defense fiscal year 2014 budget request and the posture of the u.s. armed forces we welcome secretary hagel on his first appearance as secretary of defense before this committee. we thank all of our witnesses for their service to our nation and to the soldiers sailors airmen and marines at home and in harm's way. we could never say that enough. your testimony today is a key component of the committees review of the fy2014 budget request for the department of defense. this year's request includes $526.6 billion
of missil defense approach that i just identified one as the amount and the phased adaptive approach and alaska both pieces do you approve both parts? >> i do. >> on the brac issue, as i understanding your testimony and your budget, mr. secretary, there is a short-term cost that there was an additional brac improvements, but that cost is not in the 2014 budget request. you put it in the 2015 budgeta >> the money is in 2016, it is $2.4 million of additional funds. previous rounds you testified saved, i believe, $12 billion annually. was that the savings that you say exist from the created from the last ground? from all the previous rounds. if you would like more detail maybe you could bring it out. i think you on the 75th barack you might remember you were in the the senate at the time in 2005. you might remember that i kind of lead the opposition of that round unsuccessfully. my senior senator was on the other side. yorm how you voted on that. we'll get in to that. >> by support. >> okay. okay. >> yeah i came with the first it was bringing down our infrastructure to an artificially l
of defense, we talk about the post office and prepayments being made. there is one truism on both, o s the taxpayer is ultimately on the hook. yes. so it is not an issue is this just a quasi-government organization, both dod and you need prepayments. we're ultimately on the hook the taxpayer is. what concerns me in a time, admitted, mr. chairman your low liquidity. you're not really sure you can get down as low as two days later this year, at a time in which the discussions have been made and i have read about the board of governors and your role. you do believe you have a fiduciary duty in your role to the postal service and in your role, correct? >> mr. chairman, representative, yes. >> that means there's a trust. there's a trust with you and the board of governors not just strictly you but i believe with the postmaster general and others in this situation. what i keep hearing is, well we thought of and we're looking at that. we have a five-year plan that was many years ago. we have discussions that we want to do. we're exploring ideas. these are direct quotes from today, exploring h
of the defense intelligence agency spa capano current thfureat to the national securi. along with the national security agency, the national geospatial intelligence agency and the national reconnaissanceoffice and thinteencen etservices erts of the department of de that are also elements of the intelligence communy thatth direct clapper hits. director clapper while much of the information that you provide to policy makers in putting members of congress cannot be shared with the public because of its sensitivity and classification. the people who elected us to serve deserve the best information that we can publicly provide them. so we are glad that you and the general are with us this morning to do just that. among the challenges that we face is a self-inflicted wound, one with the fact that director clapper has rightly said amplify the other threats that we come from around the world that challenges the and prioritized cuts required by sequestration. this committee is interested in hearing from both of you today about the impact of the fy 2013 sequestration and the impact it's having on the in
korea and a conversation with michele flournoy a former senior defense department official about where the crisis in north korea stands. >> my worry is on the north korean side you have kim jung-un who is a very young inexperienced leader, the question is will he know when to stop? his father, hi grandfather knew up to... how to walk up to the line but stop short of war. the question is will he know how to do this or will he miscalculate because if he goes up the escalation ladder because of the geography, because of the tens of thousands of artillery aimed at seoul, the first hour of a full-out conflict would be very deadly for both sides. you would be very quickly into a full-scale war. that's the real concern. 's miscalcation. >> crliewe conclude this evening with a look at the results of the venezuelan election with who hey cast need a, greg grandin and nikolas kozloff. >> i think his charisma was off the charts. that's not a bad thing. i think in terms of the 20th century of last inamerican history, the 21st century maybe juan per own maybe a few leaders here and there but i think
back. he replaced his defense minister . more importantly, he chade changed the rules of engagement. previously the rules of engagement on those islands, the disputed islands, the disputed area, was that for every round of incoming north koreaian al artillery, south korea was able to respond with one caliber lower. so he was out in calibrating, was that a 52 or 54 category? implet ng yong bok did away with that. he also said he ordered south koreaian fighter bombers to spond respond but was told by his military personnel he was not allowed to do that. instead, he would need permission from the united states. if you tuck to u.s. officials, they will say that is not the case. but at least that was the perception. and i talked to south korean intelligence and they said that was there perception that they were not allowed to use those weapons without u.s. permission. that has also been removed. the u.s. visited in 2010 and made a public statement, it is their planes. they can do with it as they see fit. and then privately there has been a change in perception. so even under his rule,
array to include a sophisticated air defense capability, depending who is operating in. a no-fly zone would not be without cost. >> even though the best testified he could with cruise missiles and within the patriot missiles in the right place is that we could establish a no-fly zone. >> patriot missiles i'm getting out of my league. that is essentially a point weapon. the theory is you could position patriot missiles outside of syria and somehow provide security outside the zone, given the nature of the pastry about then, which is not an area of a project or would be tough. >> and what's fascinating is now you are saying instead of the joint chiefs of staff that it has deteriorated so much that you now have questions whether we should supply weapto rebels are not, which the argues we shod have supplied them back ommended coing to published reports well heta o state, as well as the chairman of the joint chiefs f staff. it's remarkable. see you in the administration figure and say we don't know where the weapons are going. maybe if we help the people of writing from the beginning befor
suggested the united states would reduce our missile defense system in asia for exchange -- in exchange for chinese help with north korea. it seems to me even though we are being threatened by nuclear attack by the north korean government, first of all is that an accurate statement? if so, explain that if you would. >> no. not an accurate statement. i think it was corrected while i was over there. there was reporting to that effect. what i -- there was no offer, no deal, no contemplation of it. what i did say publicly and i'll say it again, is that the president took specific deployment steps of missile defense in direct response to north korea. and it stands to reason that if the north korean threat disappears, there would be a logical question of whether or not that same level of deployment is necessary. all i stated was a sort of fact based on the rationale of the deployment itself. >> do you think that the united states should give aid to north korea of some type to temper their saber rattling, which they seem to do, about this time every year? >> no. >> all right. thank you for tho
in afghanistan. our diplomatic our defense contractors now have to go and hide their worship behind a walled compound. afghanistan, while the surge was going on, over 100,000 american troops on the ground, joined saudi arabia as the only other country in the world that became so intolerant they did not have a single church. the obama administration knew about it and actually reported about in the state department religious freedom, which is still the gold standard for human rights reporting. but at the time it was happening they said nothing and did nothing. so on our watch this has happened. the bush administration, two-thirds of the christians in iraq were driven out. we have it in the book about conversations we had about secretary rice at the time saying please protecting. again, we had 100,000 troops on thground and she said no, we cannot get involved. it's sectarian here. meanwhile, the united states had just installed a shiite government in iraq and was negotiating on the path of sunni leaders to get sunni appointments in the government. so it just rang true. >> it does seem as i list
you were in china that you suggested the united states would reduce our missile defense system in asia for exchange, in exchange for chinese help with north korea. it seems to me that even though we're being threatened by nuclear attack by the north korean government, first of all, is that an accurate statement? and if so, explain that if you would. >> no, not an accurate statement. i think it was corrected while i was over there. it was reporting to that effect. there was no offer, no deal, no contemplation of it. what i did say publicly and i will say it again, is that the president took specific deployment steps of missile defense in direct response to north korea. and it stands to reason that if the north korean threat disappears, there would be a logical question of whether or not th that same level of deployment is necessary. it's all, i stated, was sort of a fact based on the rationale of deployment itself. >> do you think the united states should give aid to north korea of some type to temper their saber rattling, which they seem to do, about this time ever you? >> no. >> thank
was when former secretary of defense perry went to pyongyang in the spring of 999, and i was with him on that mission. one of the things on the table there was a very sharp set of choice that is we laid out for the north koreans. we presented two paths for north korea to travel down. one of them was the path of engagement and cooperation and dialogue and denuclearization, and the other part we summed up, essentially, by saying you don't want to go there. but bill perry made it very clear what that other path might entail for north korea. so it seems to me that if and when -- and i hope it's when rather than if -- we get back to some sort of a negotiation with the north koreans, it's going to be absolutely critical for us to sharpen north korea's choices, to make it as clear as possible the dangers that they're running by their pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capability and the fact that the united states has not yet by any means exhausted the policy options that are open to us including covert activities, including efforts to destabilize north korea, including at the
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)